This atheist is embarrassing, and I don't like her. Here's why.

[Twiggy]

This is embarrassing and sad.

I began this post when I was 28:30 in, it has now gotten to 40:00 in and nothing has changed.

I understand what she is saying in re-buttle, but she is carrying herself piss poorly, and behaving immaturely.

To add to that, she is not actually understanding her opponents argument, and she mocks everything, turns everything into a joke. She even at on point said metaphysics is "fake science" and she doesn't "give a shit" about it.

This is humiliating to see her representing the atheist side in a debate, honestly she needs to refrain from any more debates until she grows, matures, and learns how to behave and actually handle a debate, and understand the opponents argument to respond properly and directly to it.

Also, she needlessly politicizes some things with throwaway comments, or tangents about certain groups, though the debate subject is in no-way political.

Piss poor representation, I never knew she existed before, and I am not interested in her content, like, frick, this is embarassing.

See for yourself.

Edit: 1:25:30, it just keeps getting worse.

Administrator Notice
Video removed for violating the 30/30 rule.

Boru

[Belacqua]

This is embarrassing and sad.

I began this post when I was 28:30 in, it has now gotten to 40:00 in and nothing has changed.

I understand what she is saying in re-buttle, but she is carrying herself piss poorly, and behaving immaturely.

To add to that, she is not actually understanding her opponents argument, and she mocks everything, turns everything into a joke. She even at on point said metaphysics is "fake science" and she doesn't "give a shit" about it.

This is humiliating to see her representing the atheist side in a debate, honestly she needs to refrain from any more debates until she grows, matures, and learns how to behave and actually handle a debate, and understand the opponents argument to respond properly and directly to it.

Also, she needlessly politicizes some things with throwaway comments, or tangents about certain groups, though the debate subject is in no-way political.

Piss poor representation, I never knew she existed before, and I am not interested in her content, like, frick, this is embarassing.

See for yourself.

Edit: 1:25:30, it just keeps getting worse.

Administrator Notice
Video removed for violating the 30/30 rule.

Boru

Can you tell us the title of the video, with enough information so we can find it through a Google search? 

You can't post the link, but if you describe it we can find it.

[awty]

This is embarrassing and sad.

I began this post when I was 28:30 in, it has now gotten to 40:00 in and nothing has changed.

I understand what she is saying in re-buttle, but she is carrying herself piss poorly, and behaving immaturely.

To add to that, she is not actually understanding her opponents argument, and she mocks everything, turns everything into a joke. She even at on point said metaphysics is "fake science" and she doesn't "give a shit" about it.

This is humiliating to see her representing the atheist side in a debate, honestly she needs to refrain from any more debates until she grows, matures, and learns how to behave and actually handle a debate, and understand the opponents argument to respond properly and directly to it.

Also, she needlessly politicizes some things with throwaway comments, or tangents about certain groups, though the debate subject is in no-way political.

Piss poor representation, I never knew she existed before, and I am not interested in her content, like, frick, this is embarassing.

See for yourself.

Edit: 1:25:30, it just keeps getting worse.

Administrator Notice
Video removed for violating the 30/30 rule.

Boru

Can you tell us the title of the video, with enough information so we can find it through a Google search? 

You can't post the link, but if you describe it we can find it.

Trying to help someone work around the rules again Bel?

Color me surprised.

[Twiggy]

It is Jesusandwhatnot debate with Born Again Atheist

I'd also like to add, the 30/30 rule is kind of arbitrary when applied dogmatically. I understand and agree with the desire to minimalize trolling, spamming, malicious links, etc.

However at a certain point sticking to it too dogmatically can be silly. You can clearly see my account is years old, all of my posts have been on-topic for the forum, so I am not a spammer or troll, and you can see from the video as an admin who has seen it, that it was indeed the content I was speaking on, so no evidence of anything malicious there either. Someone who has had 16 posts, and long breaks between posts, in 7 years, is obviously not a spammer.

Rules are good, but some flexibility is sometimes necessary as well, and not being robotic all the time.

[Angrboda]

It is Jesusandwhatnot debate with Born Again Atheist

I'd also like to add, the 30/30 rule is kind of arbitrary when applied dogmatically. I understand and agree with the desire to minimalize trolling, spamming, malicious links, etc.

However at a certain point sticking to it too dogmatically can be silly. You can clearly see my account is years old, all of my posts have been on-topic for the forum, so I am not a spammer or troll, and  you can see from the video as an admin who has  seen it, that it was indeed the content I was speaking on, so no evidence of anything malicious there either. Someone who has had 16 posts, and long breaks between posts, in 7 years,  is obviously not a spammer.

Rules are good, but some flexibility is sometimes necessary as well, and not being robotic all the time.

Clear-cut application based upon behavior rather than intent reduces the need for judgment calls, which are usually the source of a significant amount of disruption from contestation.

[Twiggy]

Clear-cut application based upon behavior rather than intent reduces the need for judgment calls, which are usually the source of a significant amount of disruption from contestation.

"clear-cut application based on behavior", but this isn't clear-cut application based on behavior, if it was based on behavior, then my golden track record over years, would be exceedingly sufficient.

This literally just boils down to amount of posts, and not anything meaningful, given I was here well, well, past 30 days. It's just like a mindless computer program at this point.

[awty]

It is Jesusandwhatnot debate with Born Again Atheist

I'd also like to add, the 30/30 rule is kind of arbitrary when applied dogmatically. I understand and agree with the desire to minimalize trolling, spamming, malicious links, etc.

However at a certain point sticking to it too dogmatically can be silly. You can clearly see my account is years old, all of my posts have been on-topic for the forum, so I am not a spammer or troll, and  you can see from the video as an admin who has  seen it, that it was indeed the content I was speaking on, so no evidence of anything malicious there either. Someone who has had 16 posts, and long breaks between posts, in 7 years,  is obviously not a spammer.

Rules are good, but some flexibility is sometimes necessary as well, and not being robotic all the time.

The 30/30 rule is one of the simplest rules here to follow as well as for the staff to monitor.

Make more posts.  It's as easy as that.

[Twiggy]

It is Jesusandwhatnot debate with Born Again Atheist

I'd also like to add, the 30/30 rule is kind of arbitrary when applied dogmatically. I understand and agree with the desire to minimalize trolling, spamming, malicious links, etc.

However at a certain point sticking to it too dogmatically can be silly. You can clearly see my account is years old, all of my posts have been on-topic for the forum, so I am not a spammer or troll, and  you can see from the video as an admin who has  seen it, that it was indeed the content I was speaking on, so no evidence of anything malicious there either. Someone who has had 16 posts, and long breaks between posts, in 7 years,  is obviously not a spammer.

Rules are good, but some flexibility is sometimes necessary as well, and not being robotic all the time.

The 30/30 rule is one of the simplest rules here to follow as well as for the staff to monitor.

Make more posts.  It's as easy as that.

K, I'll just  start making poor quality posts, and replies on purpose then.

That's literally what this rule being applied dogmatically, is producing as an end result.

[awty]

The 30/30 rule is one of the simplest rules here to follow as well as for the staff to monitor.

Make more posts.  It's as easy as that.

K, I'll just  start making poor quality posts, and replies on purpose then.

That's literally what this rule being applied dogmatically, is producing as an end result.

Well, you are off to a good start.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It is Jesusandwhatnot debate with Born Again Atheist

I'd also like to add, the 30/30 rule is kind of arbitrary when applied dogmatically. I understand and agree with the desire to minimalize trolling, spamming, malicious links, etc.

However at a certain point sticking to it too dogmatically can be silly. You can clearly see my account is years old, all of my posts have been on-topic for the forum, so I am not a spammer or troll, and  you can see from the video as an admin who has  seen it, that it was indeed the content I was speaking on, so no evidence of anything malicious there either. Someone who has had 16 posts, and long breaks between posts, in 7 years,  is obviously not a spammer.

Rules are good, but some flexibility is sometimes necessary as well, and not being robotic all the time.

The grand thing is that you are not required to follow ANY of the forum rules - you can break all of them with joyous abandon.

Of course, consequences may follow…

Boru